Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objection
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the all” should be – all the --. Appropriate correction is required.
35 USC 102 Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito 5926952.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Ito (Figure 8) discloses a connector comprising: at least one electrically conductive connector pin 5; a pre-mold 4 penetrated by the connector pin such that ends of the connector pin protrude from first and second surfaces of the pre-mold, respectively; and a housing (empty space between molds 1,2) surrounding all surfaces of the pre-mold, penetrated by the connector pin, to accommodate the pre-mold in the housing and exposing one of the ends of the connector pin to an outside of the housing. The method limitations of claim 14 are inherent in the manufacture of the article of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ito discloses the housing directly contacts all the surfaces of the pre-mold 4 penetrated by the connector pin 5.
Regarding claim 3, Ito discloses the pre-mold 4 penetrated by the connector pin 5 and accommodated in the housing is molded on the connector pin.
Regarding claim 12, Ito discloses the housing includes a wall portion surrounding the exposed one of the ends of the connector pin 5.
Regarding claim 13, Ito discloses the wall portion surrounding the exposed one of the ends of the connector pin 5 is formed integrally with the housing.
The subject matter of claims 19 and 20 is rejected as above.
35 USC 103 Rejections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Fries et al 2023/0198214.
Regarding claims 4, 16 and 17, Fries et al (column 0033) discloses a connector having a housing made of a ThermoPlastic Elastomer (TPE) material, and to form the housing of Ito of TPE thus would have been obvious, for its known insulative properties.
Regarding claim 5, Ito discloses the housing is molded on the pre-mold 4 penetrated by the connector pin 5 and accommodated in the housing.
Regarding claim 6, Ito discloses one or more edges of the pre-mold 4 penetrated by the connector pin 5 and accommodated in the housing are chamfered or rounded.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Fries et al as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hedrick 4398785.
The undulating outer surface 78 of pre-mold 42 can be considered to comprise a plurality of convex portions, a plurality of concave portions or at least one groove, and to form the pre-mold of Ito with this type of structure thus would have been obvious, for better engagement with the housing.
Claims Defining Over Prior Art
Claims 10, 11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art discloses or teaches the protrusion as recited, in combination with the rest of the subject matter of the respective independent claim.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY F PAUMEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2013. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached at 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GARY F PAUMEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights